If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Thank you very much for this. It seems it proofs Phoronix article about Linux being slower in 3D is wrong (they were using defaults, but then I wouldn't draw such conclusions like Phoronix did). Thanks for showing Arch performs great, too.

Thank you very much for this. It seems it proofs Phoronix article about Linux being slower in 3D is wrong (they were using defaults, but then I wouldn't draw such conclusions like Phoronix did). Thanks for showing Arch performs great, too.

They did do a follow up to it. It is a shame though that they didn't run every test again without compositing. Windows 7 wins out there because it automatically disables compositing.

It doesn't seem like a fair comparison. Seems like they're designed differently. Why not do a benchmark of Lubuntu v.s. Arch v.s. Debian Squeeze (or sidux) instead? I'd add Fedora 13 and Windows 7 for kicks for a real interesting comparison! I'd like to see such a benchmark test!

Basically no benchmark accross distros is fair. You never know how many extra depends have been installed when you do compile benchmarks. Those change the compile speed when they are optional. Also runtime benchmarks mainly show gcc differences. When you compare precompiled binaries for games then you test the gfx drivers if they are not 100% the same. I definitely would not chose the distro depending on a 3rd party benchmark. I know when i change for example the kernel it can be faster in some cases (bfs seems to improve speed only on cpus without ht) or when hardware is replaced then you can compare the difference on the SAME system. Even when it would be possible to gain 10% speed with one distro that would not change much - there are differnet issues to consider like the quality of support.

And yet in benchmakrs, Arch never ever manages to surpass this bloated crappy distro called Ubuntu.

Whatever, in Arch everything opens faster and runs smoother, no lagging etc.
And yes, I liked Ubuntu very much before, but I don't like what it become.

Originally Posted by linuxforall

Btw, all those who call Ubuntu bloated take heed, its meant to work outta box, no configure this, compile that but then if you are anal, be my guest as it allows all that as well. Also there are countless ways to install lighter version of Ubuntu as well as lxde versions that can go toe to toe with these so called anal favorite distros.

Yeah right, Xubuntu is also bloated compared to Arch+Xfce4. Everything in *buntu world is bloated, no matter if they put some light DE or something.

Whatever, in Arch everything opens faster and runs smoother, no lagging etc.
And yes, I liked Ubuntu very much before, but I don't like what it become.

So it does in Ubuntu, no lags here. What it has become today is a viable alternative for those who would like to try out something apart from Windows, other Linux distros with few exceptions can't even hold a candle to that.

Yeah right, Xubuntu is also bloated compared to Arch+Xfce4. Everything in *buntu world is bloated, no matter if they put some light DE or something.

Ubuntu light desktop can be made from scratch and will run as light as Arch, so will Lubuntu.

And if we are speaking of speed, try out sidux or Kanotix or Salix, sad part is you would have to work your way around these distros, many things don't work out of the box like it does in Ubuntu, so yes, I will take a bit of system load for convenience and general acceptance anyday over so called cutting edge.

Ubuntu light desktop can be made from scratch and will run as light as Arch, so will Lubuntu.

And if we are speaking of speed, try out sidux or Kanotix or Salix, sad part is you would have to work your way around these distros, many things don't work out of the box like it does in Ubuntu, so yes, I will take a bit of system load for convenience and general acceptance anyday over so called cutting edge.

Yes, Sidux is fast. But I don't like KDE very much and Xfce4 is somewhat limited (Thunar vs Nautilus for example, and I have reasons why I need and like Nautilus and overall, Gnome desktop) compared to Gnome. So I stick to Arch and it's simplicity.

Yes, Sidux is fast. But I don't like KDE very much and Xfce4 is somewhat limited (Thunar vs Nautilus for example, and I have reasons why I need and like Nautilus and overall, Gnome desktop) compared to Gnome. So I stick to Arch and it's simplicity.

GNU/Linux is alive and in news because of distros like Ubuntu, like it or not.

Nope. Ubuntu is overhyped distro and nothing special, without Debian there is no Ubuntu. Ubuntu can be discontinued, but Debian will be still alive and kicking, with or without Windows switchers.
But overall, it's not so bad, with Ubuntu buzzwording, GNU/Linux got more publicity but it's bad if average Joe from this hype start to think Ubuntu==GNU/Linux.

First official Tutuntu came in 2004 and long time ago there was user friendly distro by name Mandrake. Debian got very easy gui and ncurses install, just like Slack and Red Hat, so there is nothing special in Debian based sid leeching distro.
It is more important for GNU/Linux in developing and improving GNOME, Xfce, KDE and Linux than yet another Debian based distro.

Nope. Ubuntu is overhyped distro and nothing special, without Debian there is no Ubuntu. Ubuntu can be discontinued, but Debian will be still alive and kicking, with or without Windows switchers.
But overall, it's not so bad, with Ubuntu buzzwording, GNU/Linux got more publicity but it's bad if average Joe from this hype start to think Ubuntu==GNU/Linux.

First official Tutuntu came in 2004 and long time ago there was user friendly distro by name Mandrake. Debian got very easy gui and ncurses install, just like Slack and Red Hat, so there is nothing special in Debian based sid leeching distro.
It is more important for GNU/Linux in developing and improving GNOME, Xfce, KDE and Linux than yet another Debian based distro.

You are a typical Ubuntu hater, lets put it this way, Debian has been around for long, its share of users was less than distros like SuSE, Fedora, Mandriva and Kanotix. Ubuntu is not overhyped, its the most popular as it manages to bridge the gap for those coming into linux for the first time without scaring them away forever. It also does mighty fine in the bling factor as well as ease of use for those who are not used to command line and configuration. Debian is now alive because of Ubuntu, people tend to overlook how subtle but effective under the hood changes are bought by Ubuntu dev team to make Debian look what it is today, upstart is now used by Fedora which is an acknowledgement of Canonical's work. Its unfortunate though that average Joe associates Ubuntu with Linux but lets put it this way, I am for anything that makes Linux visible so if Ubuntu is doing that currently, so be it. Earlier Linux was relegated to geek and nerd dungeons and now you find Sheldon from Big Bang using Ubuntu, all the more better for Linux in longer run. People who would never ever show interest in Linux or its derivatives now come and ask me about Ubuntu, for me thats victory of Linux, I don't care how its achieved, its all for good, this will also bring out other distros on similar lines as Ubuntu.